Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Davis v The Queen

[2001] WASCA 386

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Cumulative and concurrent sentences
4. › Whether sentences for separate drug transactions on different dates should be cumulative or concurrent
5. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders
5. › Whether parity applies where co-offender received concurrent sentences for same offences but cumulative sentences for other offences resulting in higher total effective sentence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Sale of heroin
5. › High purity heroin
6. › Role of general deterrence
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Sentencing discretion
4. › Whether Court of Criminal Appeal may substitute its own opinion for that of sentencing judge

Quick Take

The parity principle does not require concurrent sentences where a co-offender received concurrent sentences for the same offences but those sentences formed part of a much larger total effective sentence for multiple offences. The different overall sentencing context means the cases are not relevantly alike for parity purposes.

Case Details

Citation[2001] WASCA 386

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

Cited by1

2002Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Grakalic v The QueenWASCA 139

Relies on9

2001Wong v RHCA 64
2000R v RuichWASCA 84
2000"S" v The QueenWASCA 34
1999R v WardWASCA 157
and 5 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in